The subject matter discussed in the background section should not be assumed to be prior art merely as a result of its mention in the background section. Similarly, a problem mentioned in the background section or associated with the subject matter of the background section should not be assumed to have been previously recognized in the prior art. The subject matter in the background section merely represents different approaches, which in and of themselves may also be inventions.
Fingerprint verification includes a two-phase, or two-stage, evaluation. A sample image is acquired and relevant elements of that sample image are located. Then the relevant elements are used in a more rigorous match process to establish, within a predetermined level of accuracy, how likely it is that the sample image matches a reference image.
Adoption of patterning devices, for example, fingerprint sensors, in consumer systems is influenced by user costs. The costs are not just the retail price of the consumer system with a fingerprint sensor, but also performance in terms of speed, accuracy, and convenience of the features implemented by the fingerprint sensor. The performance is influenced by costs and features of processors and hardware associated with the fingerprint sensor. There is a natural tension in terms of cost versus performance in that lower cost systems may offer decreased speed and accuracy trade-offs.
Another factor that may influence adoption of patterning devices for certain applications, especially for reduced area patterning devices, is related to various metrics associated with errors in rejecting and accepting patterns-under-test relative to trusted patterns. Sometimes these errors are referred to as a type 1 error (alternatively a false positive—an error of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is actually true) and a type 2 error (alternatively a false negative—an error of not rejecting a null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is the true state—also sometimes a false acceptance).
A manufacturer electing to incorporate a particular patterning solution into its device(s) will typically specify certain performance specifications including a rates for false rejection and false acceptance. Depending on the device and its application, performance specifications may be set by commercial, industry or government standards such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the FIDO™ alliance, ISO/IEC 19795-1:2006 and others.
For certain types of pattern verification and pattern recognition systems, the particular patterning solution sets various internal parameters and makes various design decisions to provide an operational profile that meets those performance specifications. And for some of these solutions, that operational profile is fixed with an expectation that the operational profile will continue to meet the performance specifications during all phases of operation.
In some solutions, the operational profile may change responsive to use of the solution. Some solutions may not be able to adapt or adjust the operational profile to maintain consistent performance specifications. Some solutions may be able to adapt or adjust operational profile except that the problem is unrecognized and the operational profile is allowed to degrade past, or needlessly exceed, the performance specifications.
A system, method, and computer program product for producing a consistent desired set of operational parameters during use of a patterning solution that would otherwise alter an initial set of operational parameters could be valuable in certain situations.